The passage also says to investigate and inquire and interrogate and establish fact, which is to be done formally. In other passages this is called offering terms of peace. Feedback and consensus is the goal. The city that is responsive is negotiated with (policy is agreed on ad hoc), the one that is unresponsive is proven to be irreformable by the jurisdiction of a competent tribunal. Also admin policy is not to burn, but to preserve an archive. Your thoughts are welcome at c/ReputationCampaign; since you meet the longevity rules, you can also join the committee if you can get modded to one of the older communities first.

u/axolotl_peyotl has agreed to be a charter member.

Now open to comments but not yet posts: c/ReputationCampaign

My comments on this handshake admitted alt who has spammed this to 5 communities: https://scored.co/c/NoNewNormal/p/141roEuuZy/i-know-this-has-nothing-to-do-wi/c/4OUg3g3PWeO

Title is Caesar cryptogram:

nothing will become better. It will only go worse, and worse, and worse. The controlled demolition has began, and if you didn't leave at least a year before, you only need to look foward to the day after you die.

u/lawabidingcitizens, C has earned my total trust in human terms by leading a cautious and wisely executed community through its various growth transitions, and I find this one well-prepared for the sudden spurt. I just wrote, "Currently Scored has entered a 'land rush' phase common to any new namespace release, a phenomenon familiar to net watchers for 25 years, and my activities have been modest by comparison." I published my own true purpose in proceeding, and will continue to elaborate on what parts of that are incomplete at c/Unspoil.

I picked up about 25 sub Scores in all, and will continue, because I see that C has 50 of them himself, a good estimate for an upper bound for now. Note that only a tiny minority of them are properly suffixed with ".win", none of the new ones to my knowledge. Yahweh was my first, and Nazi was near my last, and you have total freedom to make any suggestions as to how they should be administered. I don't see validity to deleting them, though, because they would be immediately reanimated for other purposes by the next comer; best to work with me and the mods the communities select. The Scored namespace should be populated by those with the political will to see names through to good things.

Win, for the last year, has dealt wisely with two or three Wins that AFAIK are still putting out exactly the same problem you perceive will arise somewhere within the influx: echo chambers of shock jocks. I don't name them or visit them because I have no need to encourage fed trolls (pun). If you've lurked you know. Free speech must magnanimously always permit a sludge pile to exist (this can be proven philosophically). Think of it as the Limbaugh Museum of Failed Liberal Ideas.

I can stand on my reputation here. I also posted my strategy and will elaborate at c/Unspoil from time to time. Currently Scored has entered a "land rush" phase common to any new namespace release, a phenomenon familiar to net watchers for 25 years, and my activities have been modest by comparison.

"My" forums are open to selecting additional mods, however their developing communities suggest (I've already added one who is trustworthy, and will continue). They will remain free-speech havens on the topics selected within the rules given, inviting all views unless there is a broad community desire for tighter rules (albeit the Christianity-based Scores are deliberately kept under the narrower civility rules similar to c/Christianity). We've already seen clear community consensus in favor of the named topic in two or three, and clear community consensus against the named topic in one or two. As an example I didn't create, [c/FurryArt](https://communities.win/c/FurryArt) is pro while c/Furry is anti. Welcome to free speech in the 20s.

My own forums are all sincere in offering free speech, or in a few cases free speech supportive of Christianity. It is my belief that being proactive is the best approach for political purposes on this apolitical forum, including particularly the political purpose of the Republican Party but also seeking to transcend their faults admitted by their own leaders. There is no faking or turning people against conservativism, the Constitution, or limited government going on here. The fact that people exist, often twentysomethings, who enjoy projecting racism when given a free-speech forum (I've defined "racism" carefully before), is an ongoing problem within humanity that experienced moderators do their best to mitigate, and I guarantee you that all eyes are on that problem. Permit me to say "Trust the plan" insofar as Jesus is the planner.

A number of nursery rhymes are cast in the form of riddles, and many of them use rhyming nonsensical syllables to indicate the fill-in-the-blank location where the answer is to appear, such as Hitty Pitty or Higgledy Piggledy. This is a common 19th-century enigmatic literary form. It was well-known to the original audience (which included Carroll) that the egg was intended.

While the fact is well-appreciated that original data often contradict later legendary narrative, one much choose examples carefully. For a better example, I recently commented that there was no evidence that box cutters were used on 9/11. The Commission Report indicates that the only such evidence was a call from Barbara to Ted Olson, but none of his phone records indicated the existence of this call when investigated. Please build conspiracy theories cautiously and with solid blocks so that you don't have a great fall.

True!

WP shows disappointingly at "Dorchester pot", with the OP's source in full, that the simplest explanation is just mistransmission of the finding data, providing evidence of the pot being 19th-century in origin. As I said there is not a direct YEC explanation for finding human artifacts within granite. Since Scientific American said the results were being submitted to verification we can infer any such process ended in quiet rejection. Also it's probable based on custody that the OP photo is not that of the artifact. In those days of course Scientific American could still get away with attributing the pot to Tubal-Cain! (He's the man for whom the modern Hebrew name is now "Vulcan".)

I'll plug again that it's worth reading the "Pleochroic halo" article in WP, which makes no reference to the difficulty making any mainstream explanation of the effect work, and then searching for articles on particularly the polonium halos that show the difficulty. There you have something in granite that didn't get there by simple means. But recapitulating those physics is beyond my scope today. Verbum sat.

(Add: I also see that John D. Morris, whom I greatly respect, has suggested backing off from insistence that the Paluxy tracks are necessarily human, as there is a strong battle over custody of those evidences as well and over erosional changes, so I cannot affirm this particular evidence other than to say the whole history of that discovery needs further investigation for resolution of loose ends.)

Your primary link will be setterfield.org, Barry Setterfield, full but not that easy to navigate. The thesis is CDK (lightspeed decay), placing all carbon dates within less than 10,000 years. This helps with some of these concerns though it doesn't solve everything.

Briefly, OP requires a theory of sudden Precambrian formation within human memory, which leads YECs to cry deluge, although that too is a harder fit because you need something suitably molten. So I honestly don't have a prima facie theory on this one because I don't remember the volcanism effects.

Polonium radiohaloes found in Precambrian rock are very inexplicable and very worthy of greater recognition, but they arise from a formation period rather than a human period so they don't help with this vase either.

Antikythera is "out of place" in the sense of stretching our knowledge of lost arts; I'm partial to the lightbulbs depicted in the pyramid carvings myself, as we've proven they could make batteries. You also remind me of the abacus-like Ishango bone, which shows an earlier appreciation for computation than believed, and the Paluxy footprints of humans and dinosaurs frolicking together. I'll come back later though.

There is an opening set of criticisms at the original post of this data.

It's true the NSDAP typically preferred Sozi as an abbreviation, but Nazi was used by detractors because it was a nickname for Ignaz (correctly derived from Ignatius, though that is merely symbolic in power other than reflecting the high concentration of Catholic Austrians around 1900). For this reason I joked earlier today that "Nacho" is just Spanish for "Nazi". (Both mean Ignatius.) The party briefly, but inconsistently, permitted Nazi as an abbreviation.

So "Nazi", besides its folk redefinition as national socialist, ultimately comes from the Roman gens Egnatia (100s BC) and is thus Latin-Etruscan. For "Ashkenazi" I see two etymologies, one from Semitic Kenaz (hunter), and one from (Lake) Ascania plus Armenian -az. The latter is connected to Homer's legendary Ascanius son of Aretaon. It's conceivable that the Biblical Ashkenaz could reflect the same tradition as the Homeric Ascanius. But of course in neither case can we tie them to Nazi. Rather, as is so often the case, the oversimplification of old roots allows us to claim modern folk etymologies that have their own life but no historical basis.

Oddly, Ascania gives rise by metathesis to modern Iznik, Turkey, formerly Nicaea, which would make some call the Nicene Creed the Ashkenazi Creed.

I don't believe in a big crunch, though I do believe in heaven and earth fervently melting and fleeing away and being made new. I've always said flat earth as IFERS teaches it is dead, and can only work with total realignment and redefinition. In this sense we might use the word "flat" to describe an effect that occurs from light warping. Plus, the fact that our eyes are 3D means that we will continue to perceive higher dimensions (and lensing too) as 2D only, until we can interpret the full dimensionality; so I think that explains the visual plane you describe.

While I agree with you in rejecting the time bubble, I don't get planar eternity from that. The word eternity is poor anyway. I have no problem with M theory describing the cosmos as 10-dimensional (or isomorphically 11-dimensional), and that would be the brane I attribute to the word eternity. However, time itself appears 1-dimensional, though I think a second temporal dimension is curled within the Planck instant, so time could easily become planar and thus differently arrowed (though never arrowed against itself, and never motionless for creatures). But true eternity is spatiotemporal, not temporal.

The insight about defining cores as a form of black holes is valid; black holes as currently defined are almost entirely malevolent, but the definition is very flaccid and also doesn't account for a white hole at all, so there may be a larger class that can still be called "black hole" and have some beneficence, as Hawking hinted. However, it boggles my mind to try to unfold (flatten) more than one black hole at a time. It would be like trying to invert upon multiple points at infinity at the same time. Maybe you can link me to a geometry where that is meaningful. Maybe we could go back to Riemann zeta zeros, because the infinity of them are all one in polar coordinates?

Also, on the sphere earth, all roads lead to your antipode, so, in the curved universe, all light rays ultimately come from your antipode in the extra dimensions. This fact is as astonishing as its repression. Getting people to stop thinking of themselves as in a bubble and to start thinking of themselves as being in a curved world where there's more than one valid way to get long distances is an important paradigm shift. But then that speaks against classical flat earth too.

Thanks for pointing this out! This is a motif of a number of Scriptures, although none of them seem a direct fulfillment; in Rev. 13:2 the wings are missing. I've suggested an indirect relation to Is. 30:6 and similar passages:

"The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them."

Whoa calm down. Your links do not show that anyone made matter disappear and reappear. Looks like theoretical math about nearly-undetectable variations in energy.

Everything we know about matter and the universe is wrong but for other reasons than that.

Come back with David Copperfield in tow and I'll explain where the matter goes to.

Did you mean 0.02% is actually 0.1 degrees?

I'm not familiar enough with lens calibration mechanics. It seems like from high altitude where you could see dozens of miles, the curvature would be more pronounced and could be more easily measured. But because the camera is focused at a certain point (is that what you mean by target?) then everything else is warped because equidistant objects would form a curved line in space but it must be transferred onto a flat picture. So if the point of focus is on a visible circle (like a horizon) then the curvature of the circle could be warped in different ways by different calibration methods converting the equidistant circle points onto planar points. So I'd first need to know what is the mechanic by which this warping is measured so that we don't result in fisheye. I affirm the general point that the effect is too negligible to be dogmatic about at sea level, which also applies to point 2, but I'd have to work it out at 20-mile altitudes.

Obviously the article counts items as independent proofs that are closely connected, so point 2 follows close on point 1. It seems that at 20 miles altitude you couldn't make the claim that the horizon was still at eye level any more than you could claim it's perfectly horizontal, since the horizon is said to be finite in the flat model. If one lived on an infinite plane then the horizon would always be literally at eye level no matter how high you went, but that's not the model. (In fact if you were close to Antarctica and highly elevated the alleged flat-earth Antarctic "wall" should present a tilted horizon because some wall is so close and some so far.) But this is one of those subtleties where I might tell myself the difference between a circular horizon, a "level" one, and a tilted one should be obvious, but when the math is done the measurements are hard to verify empirically, partly due to the calibration effects of the measuring device. So I don't have the immediate answer, and am speaking from my experience of observation at beaches, on mountains, and in planes, that it just "seems" curved, but I don't have the quantification right at hand.

Do I need to start my own spontaneously combusted fire just to explain how he does it? We have powers far beyond what has so enamored you; and we use them not just to heal but to inscribe names in the Lamb's Book of Life. Is there something wrong with the explanation that evil spirits exist who straitly channel these powers into dubious demonstrations in order to manipulate you, when the real thing exists for free to all who believe? And that these spirits would also enact counterfeit systems that require investigation to newcomers but that those experienced with the reality can easily tell as counterfeit?

Now you've got me praying. Lord and Father of our Savior Jesus Christ, give Graphenium a sign experience that not only comes undeniably from you but also demonstrates that believers in your traditional gospel have more power than those who seem to have "magic healing powers" due to their unaided labors; for our labor is to believe in the one you have sent, Jesus our Messiah, amen.

WP: "The Mandaeans are an ancient Gnostic sect still active in Iran and Iraq with small communities in other parts of the world .... A number of ecclesiastical bodies that identify as Gnostic have set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the Ecclesia Gnostica, Johannite Church, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, the Thomasine Church (not to be confused with the St. Thomas Christians of India), the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, and the North American College of Gnostic Bishops." OK, so let's say my impression of those claiming gnostic beliefs is more aligned with the more familiar secret societies than with these groups (which probably also have similar elements). So let's say both our definitions are based on what we think people are adopting, but the point should not be what the definition is but what hidden layer of thought is true. I keep forgetting that you're defining the word primarily with reference to what you believe people ought to be doing rather than otherwise.

WP: "Radical dualism, or absolute dualism, posits two co-equal divine forces, while in mitigated dualism one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other." OK, so let's assume there's some of both.

WP: "Christian dualism refers to the belief that God and creation are distinct, but interrelated through an indivisible bond. However, Gnosticism is a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in a belief in a distinction between a supreme, transcendent God and a blind, evil demiurge responsible for creating the material universe, thereby trapping the divine spark within matter." There's a Creator, and you're not him. What interpretation do you need to seek? You just want to hang out at this Win and upvote the inexplicable stuff? I used to be a junkie of the inexplicable and then found that the Bible really does explain everything. Now I can get on with life doing what God directs because I don't get hung up on what appears momentarily inexplicable. I'll let my jury stay out on the Astros because it doesn't affect me either way because I have a greater Power who loves and protects me who is served by greater rituals that save lives instead of destroy them. I have the one human sacrifice for all time that never runs out and still delivers and that anyone can trust, Jesus Christ, the one virgin for every volcano. The Father runs the universe (and is called the true demiurge or public-servant in the Bible) and the Son redeems the universe, and I don't need to sweat whether I have all the details right because he's got it covered when I don't.

So if you see a layer of meaning, or you see confusion, speak it out and it will be validated or refined by the speaking. But to call it "gnostic" is a word game, and one that weakens your ability to communicate. Mysteries are fun because they are to be revealed, and because the revelation enhances reality. If they have to stay shut up and are stressors, they're no fun.

Nowadays most people called gnostics are connected to secret-oath societies. In the past, though we have to infer because they are secret, it generally appears that secret knowledge was received by an individual and shared only with those initiates who had sworn sufficient loyalty, and these oaths were deliberately kept from the masses, especially if they contravened the mass cultus. WP examples: Clement of Alexandria says that Valentinus got secret knowledge from Theudas who got it from Paul, who allegedly had an inner circle who learned different things than the public epistles taught. Valentinus Fragment G indicates that Gnostic material overlaps but differs from "publicly available books".

Acceptance of a creed is a public oath, not a secret one. Not about who is righteous, just a content guideline. There's a lot of unrighteousness among professed Christians and a lot of righteousness among those who hesitate at the creeds.

WP also has a nice article on "as above so below" that affirms what I've said. The general issue is whether an early source changes the thrust of the Biblical revelation, which would be the jackpot the anti-Bible crowd seeks. For instance Jesus's Golden Rule is simply a negation of a proverb from Hillel, and is not far from what Aristotle and others taught. But Jesus's framing is original, is most quoted, and is a perfect summary of human living. So knowing the origin and sources doesn't matter much. This is not brushing aside, this is to say whenever I've looked it hasn't changed matters but strengthened them.

Please feel free to cite sources that you think interesting, and I'll always give you the time I can; I find lots of old material that upends modern notions, typically just by reading the Bible and asking about the meanings of the words, but often elsewhere. This week I discovered that the historical Queen Amestris is a good fit for the Biblical Esther, except that Amestris was reportedly much grislier than Esther's just having Haman's ten sons hung (corresponding to Herodotus 7.114). So if Esther was not the lily-white queen often depicted, that's a shakeup I'm wiling to accept; but it doesn't change the fact that she was saved by grace and her story inspires millions today.

u/axolotl_peyotl, absolutely there is evidence of conspiracy in OP, but that conspiracy only serves to set narratives and threaten destinies. Our God has already set the narrative and controls all the destinies, so we don't shake even when the earth does, because we are firmly set in heaven. "So below" doesn't work for them if God prevents the devil from affecting our heaven in any way.

Not much to discuss. I'm just alluding that the expression "as above so below" is a deliberate twisting of Jesus's words for the purpose of removing the Christian God and replacing any god of anyone's choosing. The whole purpose of mysteries is to sound compatible so that they can continue to exist in hostile cultures. The conflict is generally not in overt doctrine, because the conflicting nature of the doctrine is kept a guarded secret and never officially admitted. The conflict is in the fact that secret oaths are taken, which allows public allegiance to differ from private allegiance, and contradicts the principle that one must believe the universal faith fully.

No, that's what they want you to think Jesus meant.

Maybe, but it's not proven by the etymology. Connecting astro- with Sirius is fine but astro- is not connected with earth. They want you to get heaven and earth confused, they want to define what heaven is so they can remake earth that way. Instead, the text says, "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." The righteous will continue to defend earth against false prophecy said to be from heaven, even if the false prophecy comes physically.

The original symbol was that the sun represents God, the moon represents man, and the (also) stars represent the attendants. A cosmology where the moon and Sirius are glorified beyond these levels is auto-sus. You even highlight the sus in Sulpicius and Sirius.

OP may be valid but the rest needs work.

Thank you for clarifying that your allegiance is to the humanly stated principles and not to any person or org including the Creator himself. You have sated my curiosity.

To whom is your allegiance?

[Eze 18:21-25 ESV] 21 But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? 24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. 25 Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

[Gen 6:1-8 ESV] 1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

I remember you. To whom is your allegiance?